Hacker News Reader

Comment by luxuryballs | Hacker News Reader

iirc as soon as anything becomes beyond the border the President holds the keys for various reasons including the ever-vague “national security” but also due to being prescribed as the primary negotiator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

View on HN

Tariffs are not treaties, they're taxes/duties - only Congress has the power to raise them. Article I is extremely clear on that. Historically, tariffs were always raised by acts of Congress, not by Presidential fiat.

Trump is using extremely misguided legislation from the 1960s/70s where Congress allowed the President to enact tariffs for national security and emergencies. There is a very strong argument (in the sense it resonates with the conservative SCOTUS majority) that Congress cannot delegate its fundamental powers to the executive by legislation alone.

I think people are just too cowardly to bring a case in front of the courts to challenge the constitutionality of it all. Non-delegation doctrine is what the Federal Society want to use to kneecap all federal regulation. Trump operates on a spoils system so it's not in the interest of conservatives or businesses to challenge him, for fear of retribution.

Trump is using tariffs not to raise revenue, but rather use it as a stick to force companies to invest in USA.

Previously they were outsourcing and offshoring as much as they could get away with it. Which led to transfer of advanced technologies outside USA and America losing its manufacturing and technology edge

So how's that going? Outsourcing seems to be going strong, the tarriffs instead pissed off allies who are preparing counter-tarriffs, and the CHIPS Act is being dismantle as we speak (there goes our investment.

If TSMC acquires Intel (which is in the works), then chips act (basically a government handout to private corp) wont be needed anymore

Yeah. Just killing the US semiconductor production is the cheapest option.

Well, until it isn't. It's cheap for Intel and the administration short term though.

I believe that the long-term plan is to turn TSMC into an American company

Cool, still unconstitutional.

So, for those of us who haven't studied this in depth, why do you say it's unconstitutional? Do tariffs require congressional approval? Or what?

Tariffs are a form of taxation. If I want to import say tea, and the government is placing a tariff on that imported tea, I am effectively taxed by the government. And only Congress can impose new taxes.

The Trade Act of 1974 gives the president power to impose retaliatory tariffs.

Not saying you're wrong, but... I have seen claims that tariffs are a source of government income that Congress doesn't control. You're claiming they do.

I haven't seen a citation from either side. Can you substantiate your position?

I have already explained my thinking up this comment chain. I'm mostly replying to GP who misunderstands that the intent of the tariffs is besides the point.

TL;DR read Article I section 8, read up about the Trade Expansion act of 1962 and Trade act of 1974, and "non-delegation doctrine", and you can trivially find legal debate about the constitutionality of IEEPA. Rather than listen to random nerds on HN you should seek out this information yourself.

You should let his Commerce Secretary know (or stop sanewashing)

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/20/commerce-secretary-lutnick-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com